I had this TV insurance only, Nothing else.

I am trying to find if other TV care plans have such exclusions. I want to mention in my complaint that the sales agent should have mentioned this exclusion as it is so uncommon.

Thanks SgtBush, I tried looking at T&C of TV care plan of Currys, John Lewis, AO and Argos. None of them have this exclusion.

Can you tell me a few such TV care plans which have such exclusions. Also what is Wii

Hello Friends,

I had bought a TV insurance from BigWarranties for protection from accidents ( cracked screen ). Unfortunately when I went to make claim, they said that their T&C excludes screen cracking from projectiles.

Just wanted to find out if it is common to have this kind of exclusion in TV insurance plans which cover accidents.

Thanks

Think the only argument you can make is that you were not advised the terms of the booking prior to purchase. Only you will know whether any important information was witheld about the booking, until after you had paid.

Thanks UncleBulgaria for the reply.

There was no advise given in regards to Cancellation. In fact I had specifically asked about the possibility of pre-poning the whole trip and to which the reply was that ticket would be more expensive. No mention of Non-refundability etc.

Hello Friends,

I just booked a holiday yesterday but need to cancel it. The booking was done over phone and email. The dealer has charged nearly £500.00 more than if I book the hotels and flights separately. I feel like so cheated. At the moment I am trying to speak as nicely as possible so that the cancellation can be done with nominal charges.

In the email it is mentioned that the ticket is non-refundable.

Will this constitute as binding on me and is this a fair term?

Thanks.

Hello Friends,

I bought my Skoda car in June-2015 and it had an extended warranty on it.

I made claim on that warranty

Skoda did not honor it saying that by time my car arrived for inspection the extended warranty had run out.

I came to know yesterday that there is an insurance policy "Skoda Ensurance" on my car active till Sept-2018,

which comes by default and for free from Skoda.

I also came to know that the claims I had tried making under the extended warranty could have been covered by Skoda Ensurance as well.

Now my question is,

if I was not fully aware of Skoda Ensurance,

which comes by default for three years since purchase,

shouldn't the Skoda team have noticed this and covered my claims.

Is it necessary for me to list out the policy under which I should have put the claim?

Thanks

I read your question to a pensions person and they said as auto-enrolment is relatively new and quite complicated, your best bet is to contact TPAS, the people in one of stu007's links.

 

You can ring them onn 0300 123 1047 or go to http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk for other ways to contact them and pose your question. The advice is free.

 

HB

Thanks HoneyBee. Yes I am in job and by contracting I meant full time contract, just like the job I was doing earlier but I get paid twice as much and tax is half. Perm jobs always have things like appraisal and bonus which bring nothing but disappointment.

Hello Friends,

I have heard about the legislation on auto-enrolment of employees in pension scheme and the time by which an employer can chose to postpone auto enrolment etc etc. My understanding is that Auto-enrolment is meant for bare minimum contribution that both employer and employee must make to secure a future and that the postponement period is to give both employees and employer time to absorb the financial impact.

My job contract says that my employer will make Pension contribution of 9% and an additional 1% will be taken from my salary. As simple as that.

Now in this case, where/what is Auto-enrolment? Is the Auto-enrolment legislation applicable to such Pension Contributions which are part of benefit package of mentioned in job contract.

Thanks.

Back on topic.

 

The problem with a court claim is that they might defend it based on that you can't justify the consequential loss including mitigation. You could have opted to shoparound for your energy and there might have been a saving. They gave you unclear information, but this did not prevent you from conducting your own research as a consumer.

 

If a Judge was looking at this and you were explaining your claim, you would have to justify why legally SP were responsible for the loss amount you were seeking.

 

Up to you how far you want to pursue it and risk not winning.

My argument is that they have used unfair trading practices of using obfuscating literature. If there was no literature then I would have explored other options. On the bill they used to write "Good News: You are already on the cheapest tariff in the current category". And then it would also say that I could save £137.00 if I moved to a different tariff.

The "Good News" is not relevant to me as a customer but it does serve the purpose to mislead a customer to think that he/she is already on cheapest tariff.

You have promised earlier as well to not post on my thread. This is a forum. People want to answer The Question put by someone. No one is an idiot to hold on to past which has no significance. Others have seen your posts and there have been response even after that. You unnecessarily hijack a thread. Such behaviour from you is unwelcome.

BazzaS, If you look at this thread, your comments have all least substantial.

If the bill told you you could save £137, how is that misleading?

Why could they not just say "we pointed out the potential saving, it was up to the customer to use that pointer to look into it" if you tried to take it to court?

Thus, any "loss" is down to your contributory negligence.

 

You note it "prevented me from not understanding", so it made you understand!

 

Comprehension doesn't seem to be your 'strong suit'.......

Fortunately the energy ombudsman are people who are sensible and just not a jerk. The ombudsman agreed that the literature on bill was misleading.

BazzaS, I have not mentioned the entire literature here. So it is childish to assume that I posted verbatim from bill. You need to understand that. There is no point just barking around unnecessarily and making personal comments rather than on the case itself. Also for your information, I managed to get over 20k from my employer as Settlement. Besides that one months notice period and untaken holidays. So if I had followed your advise, I would not have got that money. So stop thinking you are smartest and about my comprehension.

People come on the forum to get different possible views of a case. Not necessarily to follow all the advise given here. Its a common Wisdom that "Listen to Everyone, But do what you want".

Their bill itself says that I could save £137.00 per annum if I moved to a different tariff. However they put this information in a very obfuscating and misleading way. The ombudsman agrees that the literature is indeed misleading.

This misleading literature prevented me from not understanding that I could move to a different tariff and save money. This is the consequential loss I am talking about.

Does this sound a case I can take to court. Naturally I have lost at least £137.00 * 3.00 and that is not a small amount.

Hello Friends,

Scottish Power, my previous energy provider, had some misleading text on the bills about my current and the best tariff possible and this caused me to not switch to the best tariff.

I raised this with energy ombudsman, who agreed with me and asked Scottish Power to pay me Goodwill gesture of £30.00 for shortfall in service. However the ombudsman said they cannot ask Scottish Power to pay for consequential losses due to misleading literature, which would be to apply correct rate retrospectively.

Ombudsman said that compensations like consequential losses, stress etc are not in their scope and that's why they can only recommend a Goodwill gesture compensation for shortfall in service.

Can you please advise where can I go for consequential losses, other than court. I tried Financial Ombudsman but they said such cases are in their scope. Financial Ombudsman suggested going to ICO. Are they right? Can ICO look into this case of consequential losses due to confusing literature.

My question is more on SAR and the rest was just FYI.

I am asking the employer for some emails between me and other staff.

Does it necessarily have to be done as SAR request? Can the employer just refuse forwarding those emails other than via SAR request?

Both same.

Hey, Just FYI, I got a new job. Moved into contracting rather than permanent employment.

Just FYI, my exit had another twist. After I got the advise on SA from my solicitors, I went to employer on 30-Dec to discuss final bits and also to sign the SA and submit. The employer-solicitor said that he will scan the SA and send it to my solicitor for them to finish their formality. And then this employer-solicitor changed the pages. He added a clause that I withdraw my grievances. No one, including my solicitor noticed this and SA was signed-off.

As this new bit was not advised by my solicitor, I may likely get the SA nullified unless they resolve my grievance genuinely.

BTW, I came here to ask if as part of SAR request an ex-employee can ask for copy of company policy related to resolution of Bullying .

Still with Ombudsman. Decision likely next week.

Hello All,

Yes they did get back and obviously refused saying that since I had never mentioned how far into the future my mortgage would start, it was my fault.

They offered to refund just the premium amount

I took the matter to ombudsman and the adjudicator has ruled in my favour saying that I had made my position clear before buying and therefore if the insurer is refusing, then ActiveQuotes will have to payout.

Its back with AQ to agree or not and if not then Ombudsman will make final decision.

I have one question here.

AQ is covered by Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Will I able to get compensation under this scheme, if AQ refused to payout.

What I am worried is that if the matter goes to Ombudsman for final hearing, then what if ombudsman gives a different decision ?

How common is it for ombudsman to give a different decision?

Thanks UncleBulgaria for reply.

ActiveQuote said they will get back on Monday with their final conclusion on this.

Hey Just now, I was able to hear the call recording.

At sixth minute, I have said that "I am going to become an owner and will have a mortgage soon and am taking the policy to cover that". So in response to this she said that she knows and that I had mentioned it during the earlier conversation as well.

After that at around 16th minute, she took me through eligibility questions again. So she asked Are you a named person responsible for Mortgage and I said Yes.

What now?

Just wondering if anyone here in the forum had similar issues? Please let me know, if you came across this thread.

They said they will get back tomorrow. Thanks HB. I will keep the forum posted. I am feeling so disastrous after they told I will not be covered. I was just looking at the emails I had with Active-quotes.

I asked them various questions on various scenarios but none of them are related to mortgage. Neither did the adviser ask any question. If you think of any other senior member who might be able to advise me, please request him from my side. Thanks to you as well.

Thanks UncleBulgaria for reply.

My experience with ombudsman has been less satisfactory. There was one occasion with Travel insurance, when court overturned the decision given by ombudsman.

That's why I want to go to court. So if I am "reasonably " right in having bought the insurance a bit early, then the court will grant it. Ombudsman will always tip "reasonableness" in favour of business.

UncleBulgaria, Have you ever heard of this kind of situation and what the ultimate resolution was?

Also if someone asked me a question "Do I have a mortgage", what would one say if mortgage process is only waiting for exchange to happen?

Thanks UncleBulgaria for your reply.

Have you come across such situation earlier? How strong is my position with regards to be able to claim.

Is it not that contracts have to be interpreted keeping in view what is reasonable. As it is, the original root/motive of contract is not violated.

Which court will it be that I will have to approach, if at all?

Thanks.